Gregory, there is a difference between an historical account given by a witness and an inference made from shared evidence.

My last remark is to repeat that scientists analyze rays from the sun and infer what's inside it. But it could be an unknown substance inside that gives off rays similar to what a small man made sun would do. As scientist travel the past in their minds, they cannot be certain they know all the factors that lead to the few traces we have of years past

Here's your opening post in this discussion:

In my opinion science only knows how to make things and cure diseases. There is no way it can know what happened a million years ago from physics. Their theories say what COULD have happened, but there could have been a dragon that breathed the world out of its mouth a million are so years ago. That makes more sense then a fiery singularity. An eternal dragon. There is no real truth in science. Its about trial and error to see what we can DO, not what we know. Scientists say "this is what is in the sun" based solely on what they know COULD power a sun. They don't really know what's inside that thing and the idea that philosophy will go away while science will find the theory that explains everything is preposterous. If there was no more to search for everyone would kill each other anyway — Gregory

You attempted to show that any scientific inference about what happened in the past was no better than conjecture.

Now you have adjusted your position, saying scientists cannot be certain.

Sure, science is the best inference from the available evidence, not certainty. It's good to see you modifying your position.

I remember back to my first experiences of consciousness and free will and see his I've seen science make things. — Gregory

What? — Banno

I gave up as well.
(Wasn't that English is my 2nd language after all.)

@Gregory, you're not really saying much here.
If you raise doubt about substantially well-established models, then you'll need something substantial, a "what if dragons" ain't that.
If you promote substantial belief, then you'll need relevant and proportional justification.

I do have a specific point and have not changed my views. We know certain elements have specific effects but other things can have this as well. So we can know "so-and-so causes cancer" but not what happened millions of years ago because other things (call it a dragon, exotic matters, parallel worlds, God, or whatever) could have caused the effect ("now") other than the causes they assign to it

Usually on this forum people just try to argue instead of trying to see what someone is really saying. This discussion is an example of that

There's nothing to be gained by repeating yourself. You are claiming that there are qualitative reasons to discount the value of claims about events in the past. You attempted to show a logical difference between inferences about the past and inferences about the present or future. What I and others have shown is that this line of thought does not hold.

To take on your newest analogy, you suggest that inferences as to the cause of cancer have a firmer footing than inferences about events in the past because the cause might be misattributed. This ignores the fact that the cause of a cancer might also be misattributed. Was it the drinking that cause the liver cancer, or was it that X-ray she had?

There's a basic flaw in your position that stems from your use of analogies.

trying to see what someone is really saying... — Gregory

Actually, what you are saying is pretty clear, just wrong.

Except for that bit about "see his I've seen science make things." That was odd. Should it have been "since then I have seen science make things"? Autocorrect is an embuggerance.

It's a shame you have not changed your view. That would be a plus, in my view.

No scientific claim is infallible but the past is far more opaque than the present.

...the past is far more opaque than the present. — Gregory

No, it isn't. Despite what the Bellman said, saying it three times does not render it true.

Yes I mistype sometimes and autocorrect does a poor job. My point about solipsism was that we shouldn't have a doubt about others' existence but instead be existentially connected to time

My point about solipsism was that we shouldn't have a doubt about others' existence but instead be existentially connected to time — Gregory

Whatever that means.

Solipsism is self-defeating.

And off-topic.

I mistype often.

I think a philosophy of time will necessarily consider the past more doubtful than the present

I think a philosophy of time will necessarily consider the past more doubtful than the present — Gregory

Good for you. I think flowers look fantastic in the front garden. So what?

If all you are doing is presenting bits of autobiography, why should we be attentive to your posts?

The account given by science, from big bang through star and planet formation, abiogenesis, evolution, geological change - it's extraordinary! It's brilliant - in the literal sense of shining brightly on who and what we are. And we built it ourselves, using our little ape minds. This must count amongst the greatest achievements of humanity.

But Gregory has a differing opinion. So much for Gregory.

If all you are doing is presenting bits of autobiography, why should we be attentive to your posts? — Banno

All my posts had a point. You and debate tactics, gee. You debate, you don't try to dialogue

The account given by science, from big bang through star and planet formation, abiogenesis, evolution, geological change - it's extraordinary! It's brilliant - in the literal sense of shining brightly on who and what we are. And we built it ourselves, using our little ape minds. This must count amongst the greatest achievements of humanity. — Banno

That's your opinion. You can't prove it's better than another philosophical view point. You argue "it's science, not philosophy", right? Well this discussion shows that your belief in the formation of the universe is based on philosophy. I accept science in how it operates in the present but not necessarily in what it says about different ages

You debate, you don't try to dialogue — Gregory

Rubbish. I've presented direct criticism of your supposed arguments. You have failed to address them. This is a philosophy forum - what did you expect? Your argument was fallacious, your conclusion wrong, but now you would pretend that the critique was just rhetoric.

That's your opinion. — Gregory

No, it's not just my opinion - that's were it differs from what you have written. It's a story built up piece by piece, detail on detail, by innumerable people from across the world working to put together the facts.

And all you can do is chant the mantra "It's your opinion!".

Rubbish — Banno

False. You said

If all you are doing is presenting bits of autobiography — Banno

I did not do that at all. I was talking about existentialism in response to the solipsist comment. And I clarified this before your remark.

Hume wrote:

"The great subverter of Pyrrhonism or the excessive principles of skepticism is action, and employment, and the occupations of common life. These principles may flourish and triumph in the schools; where it is, indeed, difficult, if not impossible, to refute them. But as soon as they leave the shade, and by the presence of the real objects, which actuate our passions and sentiments, are put in opposition to the more powerful principles of our nature, they vanish like smoke, and leave the most determined skeptic in the same condition as other mortals." (Hume 1974:425)

He is indeed right in that when we say "there is no causality" we are not saying anything different from "an elephant can appear out of nowhere". We know life only from first person knowledge. Heidegger's Being and Time provides an excellent way to understand time in relation to existentialism. We know time and we can know that time becomes more opaque in the past. Philosophy can't do away with "the presence of the real objects" but it doesn't have to accept that scientists know in detail a causal series that goes back over 14 billions to an exact micro-second. The whole idea can be rejected solely for being ridiculous on the face of it

You can wag around all the Heideggerian nonsense you like. In the end, you are typing on a device that was built with our scientific understanding of the world; any criticism you have of that understanding stands contradicted by that very action. Your misunderstanding of time is irrelevant.

you are typing on a device that was built with our scientific understanding of the world — Banno

Not cosmology. Have good day

Not cosmology. — Gregory

Relevance?

Have good day — Gregory

Indeed, I am.

I do have a specific point and have not changed my views. We know certain elements have specific effects but other things can have this as well. So we can know "so-and-so causes cancer" but not what happened millions of years ago because other things (call it a dragon, exotic matters, parallel worlds, God, or whatever) could have caused the effect ("now") other than the causes they assign to it — Gregory

It is a fundamental assumption of all science that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in our universe, have been the same since the universe began, and will be the same forever. This is no secret, it has been stated explicitly time and again. You are calling that into question. That's fine as far as it goes. Problem is, it seems to be working pretty well so far.

If you take this fundamental assumption away, you are no longer talking science. People aren't going to give you any credence unless you provide some reason to take your skepticism seriously - some reason that the assumption is wrong. I doubt you can do that.

It is a fundamental assumption of all science that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in our universe, have been the same since the universe began, and will be the same forever. — T Clark

I’m not sure that’s the case...”everywhere in the universe”? ”will be the same forever”?
Aren’t both of those disproven by quantum mechanics? How does science account for variables of what is surely a vast amount of knowledge we do NOT posses about the way the laws of physics work?

Aren’t both of those disproven by quantum mechanics? — DingoJones

So... where is it that Quantum mechanics no longer works?

The Principle of Relativity states simply that the laws of physics are the same for all observers.

But folk seem to have trouble wrapping their heads around this.

I wish I could properly respond but I’ve gotten the distinct impression you address me only to fuck with me. You’ll eject, and ignore me as it suits you. Your prerogative, but fool me once shame on you, fool me 8 times shame on me again...lucky number 9 though so I’m afraid not this time sir. :wink:

It is a fundamental assumption of all science that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in our universe, have been the same since the universe began, and will be the same forever. — T Clark

Well, there are those who think the speed of light changes over time, and that at least some of what we understand as scientific laws are 'habits of nature' that aren't necessarily fixed for all time. But I agree that as a pragmatic principle, they might as well be, and that furthermore it's not within the scope of science to understand why they are the way they are. (Although this hasn't stopped some from trying, by positing meta-laws which govern the emergence of the laws we observe.)

But in a philosophical sense, I think it's important to acknowledge that science doesn't explain scientific laws. It discovers them and exploits them but it doesn't know why f=ma or e=mc².So to therefore claim that science understands 'why the universe is the way it is', is an over-reach, in my view.

Yes, I will be critical. Suit yourself.

"The great subverter of Pyrrhonism — Gregory

Interesting that David Hume was familiar with Pyrrho at all. Interesting essay on that topic here (subtitled David Hume, the Buddha, and a search for the Eastern roots of the Western Enlightenment.)

What is the speed of light outside the universe? We know its speed within it, but if the universe turns inside out the speed of light changes. So the laws may not be the same for future eternity.

I’m not sure that’s the case...”everywhere in the universe”? ”will be the same forever”?

Aren’t both of those disproven by quantum mechanics? How does science account for variables of what is surely a vast amount of knowledge we do NOT posses about the way the laws of physics work? — DingoJones

I'll respond without trying to fool you even once. As I said, this is an assumption. It underlies all of science. It hasn't been proven and can't really be. You skepticism is an instance of Hume's problem of induction. How do we know that induction is valid? We know it inductively by observing it's effectiveness. Ditto with the Principle of Relativity. We know it because that's how it's worked so far.

Coincidentally, I've just started reading a science fiction book, "The Three Body Problem." In it, physicists discover a violation of the principle. That's as far as I've gotten so far. Please - no spoilers.

What is the speed of light outside the universe? — Gregory

I don't know what, if anything, is going on outside our universe. My formulation of the Principle of Relativity specifically indicated it deals with what is going on in this universe. The one where we live that started expanding about 14 billion years ago.

if the universe turns inside out the speed of light changes. So the laws may not be the same for future eternity. — Gregory

I don't know what "the universe turns inside out" means.

I'd class the Principle of Relativity as a grammatical rule; that is, if we find a violation, then that means we've made a mistake - like finding both bishops on Black squares.